Presidential
Elections - 1998Moving
Ahead on the Road to Democracy
Despite the Bumps

by Adil Bagirov

Since Azerbaijan International
is published only on a quarterly basis, we cannot bring you the
day-by-day developments leading up to the upcoming elections.
Therefore, we have chosen to discuss larger issues related to
the process of democratization inherent in the conduct of free
and fair elections in Azerbaijan. Adil Bagirov, our columnist
for Media Watch, provides an overview of the historical context
that exists on the eve of elections in his country.

The stage is set for elections
for the Presidency of Azerbaijan to take place on October 11,
1998. Six politicians have declared their candidacy. President
Heydar Aliyev is expected to win a second term. In the meantime,
the mass media, political parties, governmental institutions
and human rights groups are keeping a watchful eye on the country's
general progress towards democratization. Naturally, questions
arise such as: Is there democracy in Azerbaijan? Are the election
laws democratic? Does the incumbent president of Azerbaijan support
democracy? Are human rights improving or deteriorating?

There are no easy answers to
these questions. It would be wrong to claim that Azerbaijan Republic
is a fully democratic state, identical to those of Western Europe.
Indeed, Azerbaijan has just begun its journey along this path.

However, it would be equally
wrong to expect, as many mistakenly do, that Azerbaijan could
make such an enormous transformation in such a short period.
After all, it took decades, even centuries, for the West to achieve
the level of democracy that they experience today. People forget
that even such solidly "European" countries as Spain
and Portugal began embracing a democratic form of government
only in the early 1980s. Azerbaijan has only had the chance to
move towards democracy since December 1991 - not even seven years
yet! It should be noted that none of the other former Soviet
republics have yet to achieve Western-style democracy, either.
This includes the Baltic states, as well.

The reality is that the process
of democratization in Azerbaijan is plagued by numerous post-Soviet
economic, social and political transition problems. These are
well known. Nearly 15 percent of the population (nearly 1 million
people) have been displaced from their homes and communities
because of the war with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. Some 20
percent of Azerbaijan's territory is still illegally occupied
by this hostile, militarized neighbor.

In addition, Azerbaijan has
had to deal with unjust, biased legislature in the U.S. Congress
(Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act of 1992) which denies
direct aid to Azerbaijan's government to help alleviate some
of these difficulties. Such discriminatory laws, pushed through
by retaliatory Armenian lobbyists, do not help to alleviate severe
economic problems or to bring about a politically brokered, lasting
peace in the region.

Meanwhile, the Western media
has been satisfied in ignoring and downplaying the positive movements
and changes which are contributing to democracy building in Azerbaijan.
At the same time, they seem eager to jump at the chance to report
on developments that are negative. Of course, it is critical
to expose outright undemocratic actions, however it should be
noted that such activities do not happen in Azerbaijan at any
greater frequency than in any of the other Former Soviet Union
republics, especially the Caucasus.

Obviously, there is no such
thing as a "poor democracy." That is, when the population
of a country has such a low income per capita and are experiencing
serious financial and economic hardships. Such people cannot
be expected to rush out and embrace democracy. Obviously, bread
takes priority over democracy.

One cannot expect a pensioner
receiving the equivalent of $6-10, or workers earning $30-40,
to be very interested in flirting with democracy, especially
when memories of much better times are not too distant past,
when people were able to live, not merely survive, and when there
was no such word as "democracy" in the political scheme
of things.

On the other hand, there can
be no doubt that Azerbaijan is more democratic today than at
any other time in history. Opposition parties of all types exist,
as do sophisticated human rights and other watchdog organizations
which work to foster democratization. Dialogue between the current
government officials has taken place both with the opposition
and the more radical elements, as well as the more moderate groups.
The infamous GlavLit, the committee responsible for media censorship,
has been abolished.

Presidential Election
LawNearly all the suggestions
made by the relevant international organizations, Parliament
deputies and opposition leaders, have been reflected and incorporated
into the texts of the Laws on Presidential Elections, which,
it should be noted, is the most progressive election law in the
CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States). Mass rallies and protests
by radical opposition are held.

Free air-time has been arranged
on state television and radio. Funding from the state budget
has been equally allocated to all six presidential candidates.
More than 300 international observers are expected to come to
Azerbaijan to watch the election proceedings. The OSCE (Organization
for the Security and Cooperation of Europe) and the Council of
Europe have already dispatched teams of observers to monitor
the situation in the country prior to Election Day. These are
great achievements for Azerbaijan and provide the best showcase
that democracy is possible and that the democratization process
is alive and moving forward in the country.

Nevertheless, certain forces
seem bent on painting a negative image of Azerbaijan no matter
how much progress is made. Sometimes one gets the impression
that no matter how democratic the elections may turn out to be,
claims will still be made about "failed democracy"
and the rise of a "totalitarian regime" in Azerbaijan.

Such persistent accusations,
of course, do not foster the democratization process. In fact,
they damage it and most surely anger many circles inside the
country, particularly the government. Of course, these activities
might be part of a deliberate strategy set on destabilizing the
situation inside the country which would have repercussions in
the international community. But to avoid a repeat of the scenario
that occurred during the turbulent period immediately following
the break-up of the Soviet Union (1991), more objectivity and
less outright prejudice should be exercised.

It should be understood that
for Azerbaijan to attain its final goal - Western-style democracy
- Azerbaijan must remain on an evolutionary path. Democracy is
a political system that is based on its members having a mentality
of openness. This does not necessarily mean that democratization
must move forward at a snail's pace nor does it mean closing
one's eyes to violations of human rights and other undemocratic
actions. However, it does mean that Azerbaijani mentality of
its citizenry as a whole should be allowed to develop in parallel
with the democratization process. The process cannot be forced.
One cannot dictate democracy. It takes time to undo 70 years
of politicization which is the antithesis of democratic individual
freedom and self-determination. The revolutionary path pursued
by countries which have tried to leapfrog developmental stages
has rarely led to the desired final destination. History is replete
with many such examples.